FlatAssembler wrote:That's a "recommended hardware configuration". It doesn't really mean anything. It can't possibly take 512 MB of RAM to install Firefox when Firefox itself is 200 MB large. It takes 512 MB of RAM to install Windows 7, which are 16 GB large. Try it in a virtual machine, I distinctly remember I did it (installed Firefox 43 on a virtual machine with around 150 MB of RAM running Windows XP) without running into problems.

I'm not talking about just installing it, I'm talking about actually using it.

FlatAssembler wrote:Yes, if you try to run the newest version of Firefox on Windows XP, you get a BSOD.

FlatAssembler wrote:OK, I've tried to add some JavaScript trickery to remove those circles under Internet Explorer. Does it work?

it does indeed. although now the background image is gone.

Now you understand why people hate Internet Explorer, don't you?It works in mysterious ways. When you tell it to do something, it does something else instead or in addition to that. As if you were working in Microsoft Office Word, but in code instead of the GUI.You have to do all sorts of weird hacks just to make your site or a web-app look right. Making your web-app actually work right in Internet Explorer is almost an impossible mission.

What do you guys think about the Android Webkit Browser? I think it's quite a good browser. It appears to obey the standards almost completely (it scores 100 points on the Acid3 test and correctly renders the Acid2 test), while Chrome appears to rather try to be compatible with poorly written scripts. It appears also to become unresponsive much less often than Chrome does. Too bad it got deprecated.

The Android browser was just Chrome, occasionally forked and then fiddled with, so that by the time it was released in a new Android version it was several versions behind real Chrome, and thus was always missing whatever latest features had been added.

Android Browser uses the Webkit engine, while Chrome uses the Blink engine. I don't know how it is with browsers, but if you want a 3D game to use a different engine, you have to almost completely rewrite it. Using a different engine is almost like using a different programming language.

Blink forked from WebKit a few years back; they were the same engine before that. Android Browser "uses WebKit" because it hasn't been updated since before the fork; since then we've just shipped Chrome itself on Android.

(I'm probably never going to solve the problem, but something in Chrome keeps grabbing the tablet's audio. Listen to other media in the background (e.g. BBC iPlayer Radio, VLC) and browse even sites like this with no obvious attempt for web-pages to load and play sound media and yet the background audio is terminated in 'preference' to the silence of thr browser. Sit on a page, nothing happens and listening enjoyment is uninterupted. Often as soon as a link is followed/page is refreshed, though, it cuts it out. I'm going to assume it's the HTML renderer (Blink, perhaps) being pre-emptively greedy in order to serve potential noises. Even though autoplaying audio is an anathema1, second only to autoplaying video!)

1 Unless it was the Yvette's Bridal Formals site, in which case the bagpipe/etc midi music was the least weird design aspect. Hey! Apparently it's back! It had been kapput for so long that I thought I'd only get third-party critiques! Anyway, this is now usefully back on topic. There are bad ways of designing websites, and YBF is so much the epitome of such bad ways that it's almost getting good again!

I seriously doubt that the mouth-opening-and-closing animation is rendered correctly in IE11, it's not rendered well even in Android Webkit Browser or in Opera.In my experience, the Internet Explorer JavaScript engine works as long as all you are doing is string and array manipulation. For example, my web-app that converts arithmetic expressions to i486-compatible assembly works even in Internet Explorer 6. Yet, when you try to do something graphics-related, no matter how simple, it won't work even after hours of trying to do all sorts of trickery.

Can somebody tell me does the PacMan game work on iPhones? The only smartphone I've tested it on is my Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini.

So, I am not the only one here who thinks iPhones are terrible? Well, finally! In Croatia, a new iPhone costs some 1500$, while the average monthly wage in Croatia is around 950$. And when you somehow manage to save money to buy it, it lasts only a few months. Its battery becomes shorter-lasting and shorter-lasting very quickly, and, after just a few months, you can't even charge it to 5% (which is necessary for it to turn on). Such a waste of money!

FlatAssembler wrote:Hey, guys!Do you have some ideas on how to improve it that are easy to program?

Speaking of your HTML-coding skills. Have you considered using some existing libraries (e.g. Bootstrap) to create your website? In that way, you won’t be quickly discourage but not achieving nice visual effects just in pure Notepad. + you will learn a lot by just simply doing some modifications of the code Bootstrap provides, just to fit your layout to your needs.

Yes, I could have. I haven't even heard of Bootstrap back when I made the first version of my website. Though perhaps good design is as little design as possible. It seems to me more and more that this website makes a good point.

Anyway, I've tried to fix the problem of the background image disappearing in Internet Explorer 11. I've also added some WebKit animations into CSS to make the background image completely visible immediately after you open the page in the browsers that support the WebKit CSS entrance animations (I am not sure if that was a good idea). I've also tried to make my website a little more mobile friendly by increasing the font size in the "<main>" when the site is run in a mobile browser. Though that appears to work properly only in the Firefox for Android and the Android Stock Browser. Mobile Safari (in the iOS simulator) appears to ignore it on some pages but not on others, and, in Chrome, it breaks the layout completely making the text even harder to read. I can't find out why. I've decided to add some browser-sniffing to disable that part of the script in mobile Chrome.